Page 34 - CLT032320

34 ¦ MARCH 23, 2020 CONNECTICUT OPINIONS

mitigate, in which they asserted that plaintiffs’ The court denied defendants’ motion to
damages could have been avoided by notifying disqualify plaintiff ’s attorney, finding that
defendants of missed meal breaks. her prior, albeit indirect, representation of
defendants did not preclude her subsequent
representation of plaintiff. Plaintiff sued de-
LAND USE AND PLANNING fendants Frank Ricci, Mark Vendetto, and

Wetlands Agency Properly Rejected others for tortious interference with employ-
Proposed Alternative to Development ment relationship. Plaintiff retained attor-
ney Patricia Cofrancesco to represent him.
Plan Cofrancesco previously represented the New
Haven Fire Fighters Local Union 825. Both
CASE: Lepkowski v. Town of East Lyme Wetlands Agency Ricci and Vendetto served as union officers
COURT: New London J.D. at New London and/or executive board members for the
DOC. NO.: CV18-6037379 union during the time that Cofrancesco rep-
COURT OPINION BY: Handy resented the union. On that basis, they moved
DATE: February 25, 2020 • PAGES: 18 to disqualify Cofrancesco as plaintiff ’s at-
torney. The court denied the motion, finding
The court dismissed plaintiff’s appeal from a de- that plaintiff ’s claims were not substantially
cision of the East Lyme Wetlands Agency, finding related to Cofrancesco’s prior representa-
that substantial evidence supported the agency’s tion of the union. Plaintiff ’s claims were not
approval of a proposed development plan. De- based on defendants’ actions as union offi-
fendant Real Estate Service of CT, Inc. sought cers, but on their alleged interference with his
a permit to construct a roadway for a proposed employment with the New Haven Fire De-
residential development. Plaintiff, a neighbor- partment. Cofrancesco’s general knowledge
ing property owner, opposed granting the appli- of the union’s policies and practices did not
cation, arguing that the proposed construction preclude her representation of plaintiff, and
would adversely impact the wetlands, and that defendants presented no evidence of Cofran-
there was a feasible and prudent alternative. The cesco’s knowledge of specific facts gained in
wetlands agency approved the application, as her prior representation of the union that
modified, finding it would have no significant im- were relevant to this case. There was thus no
pact on the nearby wetlands. Plaintiff appealed, basis for disqualification.
arguing that the agency erred in rejecting both his
expert’s testimony and his proposed alternative
plan. The court found no error, observing that the
agency was permitted to credit or discredit expert MEDICAL MALPRACTICE
testimony and evidence, and thus acted within its
discretion in choosing not to credit plaintiff’s ex- Court Denied Plaintiff’s Request to
perts. Further, even though it was not required to Amend Medical Malpractice Complaint
do so, the agency considered plaintiff’s proposed
alternative plan and concluded that it would have CASE: Carda v. Alliance Med. Group, Inc.
a greater impact on the wetlands than the plan COURT: Waterbury J.D. at Waterbury
submitted by RESC. The agency accordingly DOC. NO.: CV-15-6-26376-S
properly rejected the proposed alternative. COURT OPINION BY: Gordon
DATE: March 04, 2020 • PAGES: 11
Plaintiff moved to amend his medical mal-
LAW FIRM CLIENT RELATIONSHIPS practice complaint by adding a claim of neg-

No Conflict Between Attorney’s Prior ligence in connection with his surgery. The
Representation of Union and Current court denied his request.Plaintiff claimed that
the court erred in denying his request because
his original complaint put defendants on no-
Representation of Party Suing Union tice of plaintiff ’s allegation that the doctor
Officers had breached a surgical standard of care.
Defendants argued that, because every itera-
CASE: Marcano v. Vendetto tion of the plaintiff ’s complaint only alleged
COURT: New Haven J.D. at New Haven negligence in connection with plaintiff ’s post-
DOC. NO.: CV19-6096427 operative care, the plaintiff ’s most recent al-
COURT OPINION BY: Wilson
DATE: February 21, 2020 • PAGES: 13 legation of surgical negligence did not relate

CONNECTICUT
Law Tribune